CONCORD. -- The race for North Carolina Supreme Court between sitting Justice Paul Newby and challenger North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Sam Ervin IV is supposed to be nonpartisan.

But the race between the two men, who each stopped by Independent Tribune office to make his case, is loaded with super PAC money.

Newby, 57, a self-described conservative who is finishing his first eight-year term, has benefited from more than $2 million in outside spending, most of it from the North Carolina Judicial Coalition, a separate PAC funded by the Republican State Leadership Committee, the N.C. Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity, according to the Raleigh News and Observer.

Ervin, 56, grandson of U.S. Senator Sam Ervin, the man who chaired the Senate Watergate Committee, also has super PAC support. North Carolina Citizens for Protecting Our Schools has been sending out a mailer touting his progressive views.

Both men have stated repeatedly they want the race to be about their credentials and records, not politics.

But outside groups are flush with cash, and the result is uncontrolled spending in the race.

“I’m driving down the interstate and I see a billboard,” Newby said. “It’s like ‘where did that come from?’”

A TV ad paid for by the North Carolina Judicial Coalition features a banjo playing musician singing Newby is “tough, but fair.” The ad is trying to attract “values voters” to the polls.

Newby said many organizations endorse candidates because they believe the candidate’s views line up with the group’s views and will rule in their favor.

“PACs can say whatever they want to,” he said, but added he is not swayed by money.

“You can’t believe in outcome-driven endorsements and judicial independence,” he said. “They are two ends of the spectrum.”

Ervin faces a similar conundrum. Ads are claiming he will be a progressive justice, but he said he doesn’t think of himself as an ideologue.

The mailer sent out by N.C. Citizens for Protecting Our Schools says Ervin stands up for voting rights, defends women’s health and protects education opportunities.

“I would not have sent something like that out myself and certainly do not encourage it and don’t think it’s a good idea,” he said. “There’s enough stuff floating around right now that I think is harmful to the system.”

“One of the things the voters really have to think about is, is this the way we want judicial races conducted?” He added.

Both candidates have accepted more than $300,000 in public financing, but outside money dwarfs that amount.

Ervin said he supports the public financing system to limit the total amount of money candidates can spend on a campaign, but he said that system cannot remain viable with unbridled spending from private sources.

Page 2 of 2 - “Most of these folks clearly have a political or an ideological agenda, and they feel, I assume … that they are furthering their political or ideological agenda by making these expenditures,” Ervin said. “What they expect I think is a question that the public ought to be concerned about.”

“I think the process is ill-served and we all become cynical if it’s outcome driven,” Newby said. “And unfortunately, that’s what this race seems to be devolving into. But I can’t help that; that’s not my message when I go out there.”